Santosh Sigdel is a digital rights advocate and the Founding President of Digital Rights Nepal. With a long career in human rights advocacy, he specializes in freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and digital rights. He also served as the founding General Secretary of the Citizen’s Campaign for Right to Information, an organization dedicated to advancing information rights in Nepal.
In this interview, Sigdel shares his insights on digital rights in Nepal, the country’s previous ban on TikTok, and possible ways for social media companies to address misinformation, polarization and ensure transparency.
Deeksha Udupa: How would you define the environment around digital rights in Nepal today?
Santosh Sigdel: Digital rights are very new in the context of Nepal. A few years ago, internet penetration and the volume of internet users were very low in Nepal. Yet in the last five years, both have gradually increased. This was also when the conversation around the regulation of online speech and the internet ecosystem at large began. The government wanted to have a more regulatory approach based on the perception that social media was being misused. Until then, the Electronic Transactions Act (2008) was the only instrument that the government wanted to amend and replace. In 2018, the government brought in the Information Technology Bill, which was very draconian in nature. It trampled on the citizen’s freedom of speech, right to privacy, and data protection measures. For example, the punishment for publishing something online that the government deemed illegal was five years of imprisonment and a fine of 15 lakh Nepali rupees, which is around USD 15,000.
Civil society then pushed back. From the digital rights perspective, we are more focused on protecting the freedom of expression, right to privacy, and data protection issues. From the legal perspective, the Internet has been constitutionally regarded as a right in terms of communication and access to information. Accessing and using the internet has been regarded as a constitutional right, yet there are few laws that regulate and actually protect these rights. If we look at recent proposals from the government — Social Media Use and Regulation Bill, National Cybersecurity Policy, the Information Technology Bill — the government clearly wants to exercise greater control on online spaces. These measures have not yet come into force, but the government, through proposed policy processes and instruments, is demonstrating that it seeks to narrow digital rights in Nepal. Other major stakeholders — media, civil society organizations, and legacy human rights organizations — do not consider digital rights as their domain yet. They are more interested in traditional civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. They are avoiding digital rights because of a lack of understanding. There is a lack of exposure and understanding of the interconnected nature of digital rights and other human rights and the possible repercussions on other human rights if there is an infringement on digital rights. Mainstream media is also not paying the necessary attention to digital rights-related policy processes and their possible consequences on all human rights. The status of digital rights in Nepal is currently in a transitional phase and it may be more constricted in the days to come through governmental legislation.
DU: Do big tech and social media companies genuinely prioritize user rights and accountability in smaller markets like Nepal, or are they merely seeking to appease governments while neglecting broader responsibilities, including transparency and user protections?
SS: It’s true: social media companies and big data companies don’t really care about smaller markets. If we take the example of TikTok, TikTok came back to Nepal after it was banned and now abides by government regulations. They are registered and are claiming to coordinate with the government, which is good in a way. However, are these big data and big tech companies just trying to please the government, or are they abiding by other requirements as well? They currently only have to abide by the Social Media Directive, but that will soon be replaced by the Social Media Uses and Regulation Bill, which will bring different kinds of requirements. For example, there is a 24-hour takedown notice rule. If they do not abide by that requirement, they will be forced to pay a hefty punishment. If they repeatedly fail to take down posts flagged by the government, the licenses of these platforms will be revoked.
We are also worried that these provisions will be used to silence critics of the government and will impact freedom of expression. Digital Rights Nepal has received a number of complaints where people’s posts have been removed by Meta, and there is no transparent mechanism to reach out to them. Meta has also not provided clear reasons as to why the posts have been removed. It is clear that Meta doesn’t really care.
These companies care more about larger countries with good economies and stricter regulations like Europe’s GDPR — which forces platforms to pay sizable fines for regulation violations. I believe that there are around 15 million Facebook and Instagram users in Nepal. Half of the country is on these platforms, yet it is not a very lucrative market for them. I believe the government has repeatedly asked them to register, and these platforms have not paid any attention.
We need an open discussion among platforms, the government, civil society, and other stakeholders about these issues. This is not just an issue between the government and big tech companies because the high number of users speaks for itself. Civil society is involved. We also need to have more nuanced discussions on platform accountability: Are they only accountable to the government or to the users? Platforms must also protect users, user privacy, and user data. These big tech companies must abide by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, created by the United Nations, and they have to be responsible to all stakeholders – especially users.
DU: Nepal had previously banned TikTok due to rising misinformation on the platform. Is banning a social media platform an effective means of curbing misinformation?
SS: In November 2023, the Nepal government banned TikTok. It wasn’t a good move, and I don’t think it sent a good message. The government at the time claimed that TikTok had a role in creating social disharmony. Yet, there was no data provided by the government to support this argument. At the time, the data that was available indicated that it was not just TikTok but other social media companies as well that were equally responsible for promoting and contributing to social disharmony. I don’t find it to be appropriate or justifiable to completely ban a platform.
Supporters of the government’s decision to ban TikTok claimed that it was not only Nepal. TikTok or similar kinds of apps have been banned in other countries as well. For example, India banned many Chinese apps, including TikTok, just one year prior. Yet, in the case of Nepal, it was not based on any legal provision. It was simply the Cabinet’s decision without citing any legal provision or with any legal basis. Eventually, the government decided to lift the ban earlier this year.
DU: You were at the TikTok Summit in Kathmandu, which brought together government officials, educators, digital rights experts, child safety advocates, and industry leaders to promote online safety and digital literacy. How would you describe the effectiveness of summits like this? Is there long-term planning in place to increase digital literacy by companies like TikTok?
SS: The Summit was actually a half-day event and was organized by TikTok and the Nepal government. This was held under this new kind of collaboration between TikTok, the government, and civil society. I think big data companies and big tech companies must collaborate with their stakeholders. This allows for a level of transparency and trust-building. These kinds of summits provide a space for people to learn more about how these companies are dealing with issues that are most important for people, like content moderation, privacy, and data protection. In a way, these events are public relations events for these companies.
With that being said, I do believe that there needs to also be a more long-term approach. The Summit was a great first step—it was the first official event by TikTok, where TikTok representatives spoke about their plans and how they have been working with some local civil society organizations to promote digital literacy and cybersecurity. Ultimately, this shouldn’t be some kind of lip service or marketing gimmick; there should be serious support. I do believe that these companies would also agree with that statement.
DU: How do right-wing political parties in Nepal — like the Rastriya Prajatantra Party — use social media to further their agendas and spread misinformation?
SS: Social media has become a new tool for everyone. If we look at the last few elections and in the span of the last few years, social media has been a major tool for promoting right-wing ideology. Through social media, parties can reach out to their supporters, influence public views, and at times spread their propaganda as well. Political parties — especially during election season — use social media in a coordinated manner.
Recently, video content has taken over text. This is why TikTok videos and Instagram reels are used more by political parties over text-based Facebook posts and tweets. There are also instances in which platforms have been used for hateful speech against certain communities. This was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, where hate speech against certain religious communities increased. We have also seen caste-based hate speech increase on social media platforms. The same kind of discrimination that exists in the offline world has been replicated in the online world, with the same marginalized groups and communities being targeted.
DU: How does online misinformation and disinformation go beyond Nepal’s borders and interact with the greater South Asian region?
SS: There is definitely cross-border dissemination of information, misinformation and disinformation. The Center for Media Research recently did a report on this and observed cross-border misinformation in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. It is not just the spread of political misinformation but also social misinformation and misinformation about natural calamities. The report highlights how content from one particular time has been used in other countries in a completely different timeframe.
Politically, there are no significant cases that I can think of where one country’s misinformation has severely impacted another country. The examples I can think of are religious in nature. There have been a number of religious or ethnic clashes between Hindus and Muslims in the border towns of Nepal. Because Nepal has an open border with India, sometimes Indian, misinformation and disinformation can cross the border and exacerbate violence.
It is important to remember that the state is often not only benefiting from disinformation but is the one spreading it. I have observed that in terms of political misinformation and disinformation that go beyond national borders, it is spread more by institutions than by the public.
DU: You have previously spoken about the Individual Privacy Act (2018), which does help in some ways to protect individual privacy but not much with data protection. What are your recommendations for the Nepali government regarding the protection of personal data in the digital realm?
SS: There is no explicit data protection law in Nepal. In 2018, the Individual Privacy Act was enacted. I was recently talking to a journalist about how government agencies are not even abiding by the legal provisions of the law. There is a practice where police, once they have taken individuals into custody as suspects after a crime has occurred, will release the suspects’ photographs or videos and entire identity. This is prohibited under section 17 of the Individual Privacy Act.
There have been a number of data breaches in Nepal from public companies, private companies, and government data centers. There is a problem here, and we have to improve our infrastructure. There is no cybersecurity law thus far. There is a national cybersecurity policy that was adopted in 2023, but still no cybersecurity law. One has been proposed and is supposedly tabled until the upcoming Parliament session.
Another issue is that due to the lack of data protection law, there is no way for citizens to claim data protection from these companies: these companies are not liable under national law, which would ensure some level of protection for Nepali users. Thus, there is an immediate need for data protection laws.
DU: How do you think social media companies and the Nepali government can curb the spread of shallow fakes, which are increasingly popular in Nepal?
SS: Social media companies have not explicitly said anything about this, at least in the Nepali context. We have seen many shallow fakes here. For example, someone recently accused the incumbent prime minister of investing in the Cambodian telecom industry. The individual produced some video visuals and is under judicial custody under The Electronic Transactions Act. Before that, a picture of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Kathmandu was reproduced in a shallow fake, and it was obvious. There is a need for media, information, and digital literacy to ensure that people understand how to identify misinformation, disinformation, and shallow fakes.
Yet the level of investment by the government to promote digital literacy is very low. Regulation and awareness have to go hand in hand. The government and companies may be major stakeholders but there are also other important stakeholders who we must consider. We have to work with civil society organizations — many of whom are working to promote digital literacy — the judiciary, law enforcement officials, social media companies, parents, teachers, and others to truly combat the production and proliferation of shallow fakes.